[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation  (Read 38492 times)

Layla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Greetings Tony

I have not read all the studies on your site, nor have been at your board long enough to know everyone's particular theology.  Based on what I have read, however, I do have a question for you.  Can I assume that you think that the Book of Revelation basically is from a period of time from Jesus Christ and specifically, his death and resurrection, up and until the end of this flesh age?  In other words, I've heard some say that "the wound was to the Papacy in the 16th century."  Now whether this is the wound to be healed or whether the depression of the 20's was the wound is neither here nor there and certainly not the point, but the fact that the wound could have happened already in time.  Is that why your views appear to stand somewhere within the parameters of both a preterist and futurist (if in fact they do) in that you believe Revelation is long started and yet not completed?

Peace,
Layla

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2003, 11:22:27 PM »
Hi,
   I changed the subject to more represent the topic of discussion.

Quote
>>>
Can I assume that you think that the Book of Revelation basically is from a period of time from Jesus Christ and specifically, his death and resurrection, up and until the end of this flesh age?
<<<

No. I believe that the book of Revelation encompasses things which are past, present (when written), and future. It is prophesy of exactly what God said it was.

Revelation 1:19
  • "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;"

Thus, John wrote about things which were past, that were present (when he was writing), and things that would be in the future. I believe that God (not man) both defines and interprets what the book will be talking about.


Quote
>>>
In other words, I've heard some say that "the wound was to the Papacy in the 16th century."
<<<

I'll 'assume' that you are speaking about the wound of the beast, as recorded in Revelation chapter 13? First, I do not believe that a Papacy is mentioned in scripture. I'm well aware that many have "interpreted" the Papal system to be the beast, however, I do not believe that will stand the test of scripture.

Beasts are often symbolic of devouring kingdoms in scripture. The heads are symbolic of authorities. The horns are symbolic of its power. The crowns on the horns are symbolic of its rule. I believe that this beast with the wound unto death is illustrative of the Kingdom of Satan. Christ dealt this Kingdom a death blow for believers at the cross, breaking its authority in the earth to deceive the nations and hold them in bondage.

Genesis 3:15
  • "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The woman is the kingdom of God on earth (the Church), the Serpent is Satan, ruler of the Kingdom of darkness, the woman's seed is Christ. But near the end of the world, this 'death' wound Christ dealt Satan is healed, and Satan's Kingdom again rises up and goes forth with great authority over the nations. Basically, it's the same New Covenant picture as delineated in Revelation chapter 20, but as a different symbolic picture.

I do not take a Reformist, Historicist or Dispensational-type outlook on Revelation, focusing on physical Nations, Wars, Israel, or the Roman Catholic Church, but on scripture alone as the arbiter and interpreter of Revelation's symbolism. The Roman Catholic Church is very well ruled by those against Christ, but the system most certainly is not the beast. Satan who rules it is, and he can make his kingdom part of any Church system, including the prideful and boastful Protestant Churches.


Quote
>>>
Now whether this is the wound to be healed or whether the depression of the 20's was the wound is neither here nor there and certainly not the point
<<<

I hope not, since the great depression (so called) is not the object of God's word, nor is it mentioned in scripture, nor the Papacy, nor Israel's 6 Day War, Nr Titus and the Romans, etc., etc. These are all the fanciful ideas of man as he makes assumptions looking at the world around him as proofs, but without sound Biblical validation.


Quote
>>>
but the fact that the wound could have happened already in time.
<<<

The wound happened at the cross. Wounding the head of the beast is figurative language to signify that the authority (head=authority) of Satan's kingdom has been dealt a death blow, where he can no longer impede salvation of the nations. Christ by this death blow, has provided a way of escape from Death.

Psalms 68:20-21
  • "He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death.
  • But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses."

The healing of the wound happens in the future Apostasy when false Christs and false prophets arise and again, and under authority of Satan deceive the nations (as he did before the cross), to gather them together against the camp of the Sanits (the Church). This healing is unto the judgment of the people, not their help. The language that can be seen in Jeremiah is an illustration of the type of healing this is.

Jeremiah 6:13-15
  • "For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.
  • They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
  • Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD."

It is a false healing, a healing wherein the prophets come forth to deceive and to deal treacherously with the people. The kingdom of Satan come up into the Church with a false hope of a salvation plan that will not save.

1st Thessalonians 5:3
  • "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."

This is the woman, the Church that thinks she has peace with God and safety from His judgments, when she is as far from peace and safety as light is from darkness.


Quote
>>>
Is that why your views appear to stand somewhere within the parameters of both a preterist and futurist (if in fact they do) in that you believe Revelation is long started and yet not completed?
<<<

I believe the Revelation is completed/consummated at the second coming. That is the completion of all things. At the sounding of the seventh and LAST trumpet, when there shall be time no more. To categorize it between Preterist and Futurist I certainly wouldn't do. I categorize it as the testimony of scripture.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Layla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2003, 08:36:21 AM »
Greetings Tony

Thank you very much.  Changing the title was a great idea.  I titled it with your name as it was your thoughts I sought.

Your love and devotion to our Heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is evident in the wisdom and knowledge He has bestowed upon you.  May He continue to bless you.

You have torn down every shread of man's traditions in my thread and built up new upon a foundation of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Thank you.

This was extremely shocking!

The wound happened at the cross. Wounding the head of the beast is figurative language to signify that the authority (head=authority) of Satan's kingdom has been dealt a death blow, where he can no longer impede salvation of the nations. Christ by this death blow, has provided a way of escape from Death..

Although I did not believe the depression or fall of the Catholic Church was the wound, I was unaware of what the wound might be.  This is shocking because I have been told from the very beginning of the Word of God in Genesis 3.  I cannot believe I have missed it.  I am struggling to get away from the traditions of men, I believe that is why Our Father led me to your site.  The majority of people out there are looking for a wound to occur to the UN, America, the Commerce System, etc. and it's all very confusing.  I will read and re-read your post as I tend to have to read things several times to come to a complete understanding.

Once again, THANK YOU,
Layla






George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2003, 09:55:02 AM »
Tony. Very Interesting. Makes sense. So you believe that the beast is the kingdom of Satan and not a nation? But weren't kingdoms in the old testament nations? Why wouldn't they be nations in the new?

Another thing. How does the dragon give the Beast, which you say is the Kingdom of satan, his power. Revelation says the dragon gives him his power. The dragon is Satan, right?

Christopher

  • Guest
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2003, 11:48:08 PM »
Something that might help interpreting the book of Revelation is to know the time frame in which the events were to come to pass.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:" --Revelation 1:1

"Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand." --Revelation 1:3

Pearson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Conformed by the Blood
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2003, 04:03:36 PM »
Christopher,
 You're talking about the teaching of Radical Preterism? Or are you referring to Partial Preterism? It would help if you would just be up front..

Christopher

  • Guest
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2003, 06:41:37 PM »
I am a PRETERIST.

Pearson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Conformed by the Blood
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2003, 07:07:47 PM »
I am a PRETERIST.
I figured that much out by myself, but are you Radical or Partial Preterist? The reason I ask is because Partial Preterism falls within the bounds of Christianity, while Radical Preterism is generally understood to be heresy.

Christopher

  • Guest
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2003, 02:08:34 PM »
I am what the religious world would call "radical"Preterism." However, there are plenty of Preterists who would like to take on ANY Futurist, but they will not. The silence is deafening?

Jonn

  • Guest
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2003, 05:11:44 PM »
I hope this isn't off-topic, but if it is, someone can beat with with 40 lashes from a handful of wet noodles.  :)

Can anyone point me to a good online source that presents all sides to the dating arguments for Revelation?  I take it that most folks here believe in a late first century date (95 A.D. or so)?

Thanks,
Jonn

Blade

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2003, 05:09:46 AM »
I am what the religious world would call "radical"Preterism." However, there are plenty of Preterists who would like to take on ANY Futurist, but they will not. The silence is deafening?

Chris, there are very few theologians who would even bother to give respect to the doctrine of radical preterism. It is historically a minor assult on the church, and not really very popular that we should go out of our way to defend against it. But partial preterism is what has been making great strides in the church because it isn't so obviously incredulous as the radical form of preterism is.

As for your questions, they have been answered over and over again. If you like, I can direct you to some sites which thoroughly defeat the doctrine.

Shirley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Female
  • The Spirit of Christ
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2003, 06:31:51 AM »
Isn't it a problem in eschatology when some Christians spiritualize everything? I'm not saying some spiritualizing isn't justified, I know it is. But everything is not spiritual, don't you agree? I was on one site where the Christians were spiritualizing the book of Matthew and used it to preach that Christ has already returned.

I notice a lot of spiritualizing on this site also. Isn't that a bad way to approach understanding of scripture? When God says he bound satan, shouldn't we take that literally? When He says he is coming back, shouldn't we take that literally?

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2003, 06:02:43 PM »
What is 'spiritualizing' except looking at Scripture after the same manner as the Author Himself.

1 Corinthians 2:13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

If you read that Satan was bound, "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years", do you suppose it is to be literally interpreted?  Is Satan really shaped like a dragon? Was Satan really held in a bottomless pit? Is a literal key really required to open this pit?  Was there really a seal affixed across the pit's door? If you say, "Yes", then you can likewise join the ranks with those who say the thousand years will be literally fulfilled some day. But in this you err, for God wrote spiritual truths for those with spiritual understanding -- that is wisdom.

Colossians 1:9  For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Spiritual understanding is gained when we rightly divide God's word, when we correctly understand the types and figures that God uses to get across His spiritual truth. In the flesh we say, "a 1000 years must be a literal 1000 years", but through the spirit we see the Truth God intended, comparing spiritual with spiritual

Ephesians 1:17  That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

There are those who look at some text of Scripture, muse over it, and conclude that it must be understood spiritually -- yet God has not validated such an interpretation. For instance, a preterist would say Jesus returned metaphysically on 70AD and fulfilled Matthew 24:30 by coming in Judgment for the Jews. Man has spoken it to be so --- BUT HAS GOD?  How is it the preterist can wrest Scripture and squeeze it into their preterist box? Because they do so through the flesh, not the Spirit.  Their reasoning opposes God's Spirit, the very Spirit that leads us (the elect) into Truth.

John 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Did not the disciples ask "...what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"  Do you suppose they could correctly connect the end of the world with Christ's return?  Or are the preterist correct in forcing the question into two parts: "what shall be the sign of thy coming" to destroy the temple in 70AD, and also what is the sign of your coming "at the end of the world". Do we believe with the preterist that immediately after the tribulation of those days (70AD) this happened: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other


When our conclusions violate Scripture, as the preterist case for Christ's return in 70AD, we are left with confusion and disharmony -- a clear indication of error. Knowing that Christ did not come on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory and His angels did not sound the last trumpet, and the elect were not gathered together in 70AD, a rational, teachable, and spiritually minded person would repent and humble themselves. But yet Preterism remains and continues to be taught as truth in and out of the churches.  

Therefore, spiritualizing is the process of seeing the Scriptures with 'spiritual eyes' that God has given, as they were intended to be understood by their very Author. Apart from God's Spirit leading us into Truth men will continue to design their own man-centered, earth-centered, nation of Israel centered, kingdom on earth centered doctrine of eschatology, and the spiritualizing that is done will continue to be borne out of the heart of lawlessness and in rebellion and opposition to all truth.

Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

How sad in our day, that with such a great increase in knowledge there is a correspondingly greater lack of wisdom. Listen if you have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Matthew 13:43  Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Shirley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • Gender: Female
  • The Spirit of Christ
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2003, 03:35:39 AM »
Yes, I understand that. But when it says Satan will be bound that he not deceive the nations, and we see Satan not bound today, we shouldn't spiritualize that he is bound. Or spiritualize that the Church is Israel.

andreas

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless, look to Thee for grace
Re: Literal Interpretation Versus Allegorical or Spiritual Interpretation
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2003, 03:43:00 AM »
<<<I notice a lot of spiritualizing on this site also>>>
We should pray in the spirit,we should walk in the spirit,we should live in the spirit."Except a man be born of the spirit, he can not see,he can not enter the kingdom"."If ye ,through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live".All the fruits of holiness are fruits of the spirit."They overcame him by the blood of the lamb,and by the word of their testimony." The word of their testimony is but the work of the spirit.What more do you want than the spirit of Christ? God is a spirit,there is nothing wrong with spiritualizing.Trust in the blood of the Lamb and the power of His spirit.
andreas. 8)
kai ean diabainhs dió udatos meta sou eimi kai potamoi ou sugklusousin se kai ean dielqhs dia puros ou mh katakauqhs flox ou katakausei Isaiah 43:2

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]